Monthly Archive for January, 2009Page 2 of 8

New Releases

Published

on January 24, 2009

I am *so* excited!! Studying for my licensing exam, job applications, job interviews and unfortunately a death in the family have kept me from my regular internet activities. And to my surprise, I discovered that a book I've been eagerly waiting for is being released early! YEAH!

As soon as this came to my attention, I went straight to Amazon to place my order. The book is Raising Freethinkers: A Practical Guide for Parenting Beyond Belief. If this book is half as good as the first book, Parenting Beyond Belief: On Raising Ethical, Caring Kids Without Religion, I will LOVE it.

These books address the issues where atheists may differ from theists in the subject of raising children. Some of these subjects include: death and dying, values, holidays, living with religion, meaning and purpose, wondering and questioning, etc. It is very difficult to do things differently from one's parents. I was raised by fundamentalist Christian parents who thought that James Dobson wrote the best parenting books. I felt like I was starting from scratch and had to question every reaction I had when I became a parent...I often still do. Is this reaction reasonable? Why do I feel that their actions were wrong? Is that a good reason? I couldn't rely on the answers I was given when I was a child. No...thunder and lightning is not happening because god is bowling. I had to figure out a way to explain these things in kids terms so that I was giving a real answer. If I don't know an answer, which happens a lot, we look it up together. Reading how others have dealt with similar situations has been very helpful to me. I have referred to my PBB book many times and I'm sure I'll do the same with Raising Freethinkers.

I should also add that the feeling that I was starting from scratch was not only because of my change in views on religion. My sister and I had our first children 1 month apart. She is a Christian and she also has her Master's degree in Social Work. We both do things very differently from our parents and have relied on one another for advice and ideas. I think this has a lot to do with the fact that we both have degrees in Psychology and have learned better behavior modification techniques than what our parents used. For example, neither of us spank our children because we know that the science just doesn't back it up as an effective form of discipline. This change was challenging for both of us, but we've helped each other find research on different methods of discipline and other parenting issues. My non-belief compounded my feeling of starting over and it's nice to have these books available....kind of like having another sister to talk to ;)

While I was at Amazon, I also ordered 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God. I've heard the author, Guy Harrison, interviewed on many of my favorite podcasts and have been anxious to read it. The other book I ordered is Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became one of America's Leading Atheists. Now that I'm finished with school, I should have more time to read the books I want to read. I'll call these my early Darwin Day presents ;)

An Atheist and Christian Debate: Part 7

Published

Ron

on January 24, 2009

And so we've come to the last few installments of this debate. At this point, it's apparent that Julio's understanding of evolution (and science in general) is completely screwy , and has been poisoned by Christian propaganda and pseudo-science.

-------------------------------
To: Daniel
Subject: Re: Research Volunteers Needed
From: Julio
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 03:01:03 +0000

I'll try me best to keep this short.

Evolution is a theory! A theory, is a guess, a speculation or what you call "shooting from the hip". This Darwin guy who CAME UP with this explanation/belief (or rather enforced it to great measures) said it himself, its a "theory". Like I mentioned many emails ago that evolution is a form of belief for something that man has and will never see, obviously we can't be alive for 10 million years, so hence theory.

Part of evolution is mutation which makes it part of your belief, in other words when you see "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" you must be in "aww!". All kidding aside, and as a neutral party would say you or anyone for that matter cannot prove evolution for obvious reasons but yet you have faith in that "my son". If I questioned the very creator of this evolution theory, he would tell me the same "you just have to believe in this".

You're asking me to prove the existence of God when yet you yourself or anyone cannot prove evolution, and when I ask for proof I don't want a theory or old fossils that "might" lead us to "believe" in evolution. The chief weakness of evolution lies in the "many gaps" that are not filled. Scientist this very day are arguing and questioning these big gaps, this is were one of the many controversies of evolution begins, like immediate mutation compared to gradual mutation or if mutation exists period, yet another thing that is not proven but a simple theory.

Again, your belief is in Evolution, does it really exists? I don't know its still a theory, a speculation, a guess. In one of your emails you asked me to take a class but I have to go in their and "believe" not just go their to out right reject it, the point is you want me to go in their and believe. The belief in God is what many people say is another theory the only difference is what theory are you going to go with, both require faith. Yes, "faith"! Faith is not only a biblical term but part of the English language that means "confidence or trust in a thing". Your trust/confidence is in evolution, mine is in God.

Your quote:

"You have absolutely no scientific basis for believing that the theory of evolution is false. In fact, nobody does...that's why it's still accepted as fact."

Two words in your statement that stand out about the very solid proof of our evolution existence, you mentioned "theory" and "accepted". Both have to do with something that is not sure and like Christianity is accepted. So the very thing that you call silly because of no proof or lack of substantial proof is exactly what you believe in. Your theory is that we were all molecules millions and billions of years ago and some how all these molecules got to together to form your stomach, your heart, your lungs, your brain, your miles and miles of veins, and uniquely these molecules knew there had to be a penis and vagina for reproduction but most importantly the molecules understood the entire function of the body and how every organ is critical for our well being.

And to clarify, its not that I'm allowed or not allowed to believe in other things, its purely by choice. The same exact choice and flexibility you had to change from a Christian to an agnostic/Atheist is the same flexibilty I have, were no different in that regard. Yet you choose what you choose, again purely by choice. If I asked that your evolution belief doesn't allow you to believe in other things, your mind goes crazy and tells its self "is Julio crazy doesn't he know that, etc......" Well that's the same exact thing that goes through my mind.

P.S-You still haven't answered my question. I am interested in knowing the reasons why you think a God "does" exist. You volunteered to let me know and asked if I was interested and I'm letting you know to give it to me my Nig!
(I want you to make it a point to respond to this on your next email)

I tried to keep it short but I think I failed.

Sincerely,
Donatello (I think its the red turtle)!

An Atheist and Christian Debate: Part 7

Published

Daniel

on January 24, 2009

"You have absolutely no scientific basis for believing that the theory of evolution is false. In fact, nobody does...that's why it's still accepted as fact."

More news on the dollar

Published

on January 23, 2009

After yesterday's brief discussion on the future of the dollar, there are three major articles today on the subject.

First, the Wall Street Journal takes issue with the presumptive replacement for Tim Geithner at the New York Fed- a Mr. William Dudley.

One of the Fed's most important tasks in coming months will be deciding when to remove the oceans of liquidity that it has been pushing into the economy to fight off a deeper recession. Remove it too late once the recovery begins, and the Fed will risk creating new asset bubbles or a run on the dollar. Yet as chief economist for many years at Goldman Sachs, Mr. Dudley consistently supported a weak dollar in the name of reducing the U.S. trade deficit.

This is a dangerous message to send at any time, but in particular as the new Administration embarks on an epic spending spree that will require from $2 trillion to $3 trillion in new U.S. borrowing over the next two years. The world's creditors aren't likely to lend as much, or as cheaply, if they think their dollar assets will be debased as a matter of U.S. policy.

Reuter's provides a contrasting view- that Geithner and Obama face a daunting, but vital, task of persuading the world that they intend to maintain a strong-dollar policy.

"This time around the administration probably means it when it says it backs a strong dollar. They have to be dead serious about it," said Samarjit Shankar, a director for global strategy at the Bank of New York Mellon, in Boston.

"Trillions worth of U.S. debt is coming soon to the markets. Which foreign central bank or institution will buy this debt if they are not fully convinced the dollar will remain strong?" he added.

The challenge for Obama's team, analysts said, will be to support the dollar's value without direct manipulation in the markets, with the economy in recession, interest rates near zero, and a ballooning current account deficit.

Moreover, Washington will have to achieve all that without antagonizing China, the biggest holder of U.S. Treasury debt, the analysts said.
"It will be a real test. One thing is to finance a $450 billion deficit and another is to finance $2 trillion," said Chris Rupkey, a senior financial economist at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi in New York.

And finally, a wonderful op-ed piece from Peter Schiff.

Barack Obama has spoken often of sacrifice. And as recently as a week ago, he said that to stave off the deepening recession Americans should be prepared to face "trillion dollar deficits for years to come."

But apart from a stirring call for volunteerism in his inaugural address, the only specific sacrifices the president has outlined thus far include lower taxes, millions of federally funded jobs, expanded corporate bailouts, and direct stimulus checks to consumers. Could this be described as sacrificial?

What he might have said was that the nations funding the majority of America's public debt -- most notably the Chinese, Japanese and the Saudis -- need to be prepared to sacrifice. They have to fund America's annual trillion-dollar deficits for the foreseeable future. These creditor nations, who already own trillions of dollars of U.S. government debt, are the only entities capable of underwriting the spending that Mr. Obama envisions and that U.S. citizens demand.

These nations, in other words, must never use the money to buy other assets or fund domestic spending initiatives for their own people. When the old Treasury bills mature, they can do nothing with the money except buy new ones. To do otherwise would implode the market for U.S. Treasurys (sending U.S. interest rates much higher) and start a run on the dollar. (If foreign central banks become net sellers of Treasurys, the demand for dollars needed to buy them would plummet.)

In sum, our creditors must give up all hope of accessing the principal, and may be compensated only by the paltry 2%-3% yield our bonds currently deliver.

As absurd as this may appear on the surface, it seems inconceivable to President Obama, or any respected economist for that matter, that our creditors may decline to sign on. Their confidence is derived from the fact that the arrangement has gone on for some time, and that our creditors would be unwilling to face the economic turbulence that would result from an interruption of the status quo.

But just because the game has lasted thus far does not mean that they will continue playing it indefinitely. Thanks to projected huge deficits, the U.S. government is severely raising the stakes. At the same time, the global economic contraction will make larger Treasury purchases by foreign central banks both economically and politically more difficult.

More news on the dollar

Published

on January 23, 2009

One of the Fed's most important tasks in coming months will be deciding when to remove the oceans of liquidity that it has been pushing into the economy to fight off a deeper recession. Remove it too late once the recovery begins, and the Fed will risk creating new asset bubbles or a run on the dollar. Yet as chief economist for many years at Goldman Sachs, Mr. Dudley consistently supported a weak dollar in the name of reducing the U.S. trade deficit.

This is a dangerous message to send at any time, but in particular as the new Administration embarks on an epic spending spree that will require from $2 trillion to $3 trillion in new U.S. borrowing over the next two years. The world's creditors aren't likely to lend as much, or as cheaply, if they think their dollar assets will be debased as a matter of U.S. policy.

Reuter's provides a contrasting view- that Geithner and Obama face a daunting, but vital, task of persuading the world that they intend to maintain a strong-dollar policy.

"This time around the administration probably means it when it says it backs a strong dollar. They have to be dead serious about it," said Samarjit Shankar, a director for global strategy at the Bank of New York Mellon, in Boston.

"Trillions worth of U.S. debt is coming soon to the markets. Which foreign central bank or institution will buy this debt if they are not fully convinced the dollar will remain strong?" he added.

The challenge for Obama's team, analysts said, will be to support the dollar's value without direct manipulation in the markets, with the economy in recession, interest rates near zero, and a ballooning current account deficit.

Moreover, Washington will have to achieve all that without antagonizing China, the biggest holder of U.S. Treasury debt, the analysts said.
"It will be a real test. One thing is to finance a $450 billion deficit and another is to finance $2 trillion," said Chris Rupkey, a senior financial economist at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi in New York.

And finally, a wonderful op-ed piece from Peter Schiff.

Barack Obama has spoken often of sacrifice. And as recently as a week ago, he said that to stave off the deepening recession Americans should be prepared to face "trillion dollar deficits for years to come."

But apart from a stirring call for volunteerism in his inaugural address, the only specific sacrifices the president has outlined thus far include lower taxes, millions of federally funded jobs, expanded corporate bailouts, and direct stimulus checks to consumers. Could this be described as sacrificial?

What he might have said was that the nations funding the majority of America's public debt -- most notably the Chinese, Japanese and the Saudis -- need to be prepared to sacrifice. They have to fund America's annual trillion-dollar deficits for the foreseeable future. These creditor nations, who already own trillions of dollars of U.S. government debt, are the only entities capable of underwriting the spending that Mr. Obama envisions and that U.S. citizens demand.

These nations, in other words, must never use the money to buy other assets or fund domestic spending initiatives for their own people. When the old Treasury bills mature, they can do nothing with the money except buy new ones. To do otherwise would implode the market for U.S. Treasurys (sending U.S. interest rates much higher) and start a run on the dollar. (If foreign central banks become net sellers of Treasurys, the demand for dollars needed to buy them would plummet.)

In sum, our creditors must give up all hope of accessing the principal, and may be compensated only by the paltry 2%-3% yield our bonds currently deliver.

As absurd as this may appear on the surface, it seems inconceivable to President Obama, or any respected economist for that matter, that our creditors may decline to sign on. Their confidence is derived from the fact that the arrangement has gone on for some time, and that our creditors would be unwilling to face the economic turbulence that would result from an interruption of the status quo.

But just because the game has lasted thus far does not mean that they will continue playing it indefinitely. Thanks to projected huge deficits, the U.S. government is severely raising the stakes. At the same time, the global economic contraction will make larger Treasury purchases by foreign central banks both economically and politically more difficult.

Embrace the cause of liberty!

Published

on January 23, 2009

Politics is the science of liberty: man's government of his fellow-man, no matter the name under which it lurks, is oppression: society's highest perfection lies in the marriage of order and anarchy.
The end of the old civilization is nigh: under a new sun, the face of the earth is going to be remade. Let us leave a generation to die out; let us leave the old prevaricators to perish in the desert--the blessed earth will not cover their bones. Young man, outraged by the corruption of the times and consumed by a yearning for justice--if you hold your country dear, and have any feeling for the interests of humanity--make bold and embrace the cause of liberty. Strip off your ancient selfishness and immerse yourself in the popular tide of nascent equality. There, your rehydrated soul can drink deep of a sap an an unknown vigor: your wit, gone flabby, will recover irrepressible energy; your heart--even now shriveled perhaps--will be rejuvenated. Your purified eyes will see everything in a new light: new sentiments will inspire new thoughts in you; religion, morality, poetry, art, language, will loom taller and more beautiful; and, certain then of your faith, thoughtfully enthusiastic, you will greet the dawning of universal regeneration.

Proudhon, from Property is Theft

Embrace the cause of liberty!

Published

on January 23, 2009

Politics is the science of liberty: man's government of his fellow-man, no matter the name under which it lurks, is oppression: society's highest perfection lies in the marriage of order and anarchy.
The end of the old civilization is nigh: under a new sun, the face of the earth is going to be remade. Let us leave a generation to die out; let us leave the old prevaricators to perish in the desert--the blessed earth will not cover their bones. Young man, outraged by the corruption of the times and consumed by a yearning for justice--if you hold your country dear, and have any feeling for the interests of humanity--make bold and embrace the cause of liberty. Strip off your ancient selfishness and immerse yourself in the popular tide of nascent equality. There, your rehydrated soul can drink deep of a sap an an unknown vigor: your wit, gone flabby, will recover irrepressible energy; your heart--even now shriveled perhaps--will be rejuvenated. Your purified eyes will see everything in a new light: new sentiments will inspire new thoughts in you; religion, morality, poetry, art, language, will loom taller and more beautiful; and, certain then of your faith, thoughtfully enthusiastic, you will greet the dawning of universal regeneration.

Proudhon, from Property is Theft

Teaching Christian Morals at the Office

Published

DocMike

on January 23, 2009

Do you have a guy like this at work?

Many Christians feel the need to save the rest of the world, whether we like it or not. Why can't they just leave us alone?

Theiving Merrill executives accelerated bonuses before BofA deal

Published

on January 22, 2009

Every time I think I've seen the lowest, most despicable, most brazen, unconscionable, outright theft, something like this comes along and proves me all wrong. When do we start seeing these fucking executives in handcuffs?

Merrill delivered bonuses before BofA deal
Merrill Lynch took the unusual step of accelerating bonus payments by a month last year, doling out billions of dollars to employees just three days before the closing of its sale to Bank of America.
The timing is notable because the money was paid as Merrill’s losses were mounting and Ken Lewis, BofA’s chief executive, was seeking additional funds from the government’s troubled asset recovery programme to help close the deal.
Merrill and BofA shareholders voted to approve the takeover on December 5. Three days later, Merrill’s compensation committee approved the bonuses, which were paid on December 29. In past years, Merrill had paid bonuses later – usually late January or early February, according to company officials.
Within days of the compensation committee meeting, BofA officials said they became aware that Merrill’s fourth-quarter losses would be greater than expected and began talks with the US Treasury on securing additional Tarp money.
Last week, BofA said it would be receiving $20bn in Tarp money, in addition to the $25bn that had been earmarked for it and Merrill last year. It was then revealed that Merrill had suffered a $21.5bn operating loss in the fourth quarter.
Despite the magnitude of the losses, Merrill had set aside $15bn for 2008 compensation, a sum that was only 6 per cent lower than the total in 2007, when the investment bank’s losses were smaller.
The bulk of $15bn in compensation was paid out as salary and benefits throughout the course of the year. A person familiar with the matter estimated that about $3bn to $4bn was paid out in bonuses in December.
Nancy Bush, an analyst with NAB Research, described the size of the 2008 Merrill bonus payments as “ridiculous”.
BofA said: “Merrill Lynch was an independent company until January 1 2009. John Thain (Merrill’s chief executive) decided to pay year-end incentives in December as opposed to their normal date in January. BofA was informed of his decision.”
BofA declined to specify when Mr Thain informed the bank of his decision.
A source familiar with the matter says Mr Thain, in the weeks leading up to the December 8 compensation committee meeting, had been weighing the possibility of requesting a bonus of at least $10m for himself before ultimately deciding against such a move.

So, if you're not clear what this means, let me break it down for you. Merrill decides they are too broke to function as an independent company, so they decide to sell themselves to Bank of America. Bank of America gets $25,000,000,000 (it seems like a bigger number if you use all the zeros instead of just saying "$25 billion") from the Paulson to make the deal work. Merrill decides a couple of days later that they've done a hell of a wonderful job and still deserve their bonuses, but they've got to hurry up and pay them out before BofA takes them over. In the meantime, BofA realizes that Merrill's eyeball deep in bad shit, and wants out of the deal. Paulson says, "no way", and kicks in another $20,000,000,000 and agrees to guarantee up to $118,000,000,000 in bad loans. Today, BofA says to John Thain (former CEO of Merrill Lynch) "your services are no longer needed."

In short: Merrill executives are fucking theives, and have perpetrated a massive heist on Bank of America, who passed the buck on to you, the taxpayer. How does that make you feel?

Theiving Merrill executives accelerated bonuses before BofA deal

Published

on January 22, 2009

Merrill delivered bonuses before BofA deal
Merrill Lynch took the unusual step of accelerating bonus payments by a month last year, doling out billions of dollars to employees just three days before the closing of its sale to Bank of America.
The timing is notable because the money was paid as Merrill’s losses were mounting and Ken Lewis, BofA’s chief executive, was seeking additional funds from the government’s troubled asset recovery programme to help close the deal.
Merrill and BofA shareholders voted to approve the takeover on December 5. Three days later, Merrill’s compensation committee approved the bonuses, which were paid on December 29. In past years, Merrill had paid bonuses later – usually late January or early February, according to company officials.
Within days of the compensation committee meeting, BofA officials said they became aware that Merrill’s fourth-quarter losses would be greater than expected and began talks with the US Treasury on securing additional Tarp money.
Last week, BofA said it would be receiving $20bn in Tarp money, in addition to the $25bn that had been earmarked for it and Merrill last year. It was then revealed that Merrill had suffered a $21.5bn operating loss in the fourth quarter.
Despite the magnitude of the losses, Merrill had set aside $15bn for 2008 compensation, a sum that was only 6 per cent lower than the total in 2007, when the investment bank’s losses were smaller.
The bulk of $15bn in compensation was paid out as salary and benefits throughout the course of the year. A person familiar with the matter estimated that about $3bn to $4bn was paid out in bonuses in December.
Nancy Bush, an analyst with NAB Research, described the size of the 2008 Merrill bonus payments as “ridiculous”.
BofA said: “Merrill Lynch was an independent company until January 1 2009. John Thain (Merrill’s chief executive) decided to pay year-end incentives in December as opposed to their normal date in January. BofA was informed of his decision.”
BofA declined to specify when Mr Thain informed the bank of his decision.
A source familiar with the matter says Mr Thain, in the weeks leading up to the December 8 compensation committee meeting, had been weighing the possibility of requesting a bonus of at least $10m for himself before ultimately deciding against such a move.

"They hate us because of our freedoms" or….

Published

on January 22, 2009

In September, 2001 former-president Bush (I love saying that) stood before Congress and the American public and provided his explanation for why we were attacked:

Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.

The truth makes far more sense: they hate us because our foreign policy has, for years, killed them in cold blood. The Christian Science Monitor from 9/27/01:

But from Jakarta to Cairo, Muslims and Arabs say that on reflection, they are not surprised by it. And they do not share Mr. Bush's view that the perpetrators did what they did because "they hate our freedoms."

Rather, they say, a mood of resentment toward America and its behavior around the world has become so commonplace in their countries that it was bound to breed hostility, and even hatred.

And the buttons that Mr. bin Laden pushes in his statements and interviews - the injustice done to the Palestinians, the cruelty of continued sanctions against Iraq, the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, the repressive and corrupt nature of US-backed Gulf governments - win a good deal of popular sympathy.

Specifically in regard to Israel:

From one end of the region to the other, the perception is that Israel can get away with murder - literally - and that Washington will turn a blind eye. Clearly, the US and Israel have compelling reasons for their actions. But little that US diplomats have done in recent years to broker a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians has persuaded Arabs that the US is a fair-minded and equitable judge of Middle Eastern affairs.

Over the past year, Arab TV stations have broadcast countless pictures of Israeli soldiers shooting at Palestinian youths, Israeli tanks plowing into Palestinian homes, Israeli helicopters rocketing Palestinian streets. And they know that the US sends more than $3 billion a year in military and economic aid to Israel.

"You see this every day, and what do you feel?" asks Rafiq Hariri, the portly prime minister of Lebanon, who is not an excitable man. "It hurts me a lot. But for hundreds of thousands of Arabs and Muslims, it drives them crazy. They feel humiliated."

It appears that we have not learned our lesson. Fast-forward to 2009, we see new threats from Al-Qaeda based on our unquestioning support for Israel:

A prominent Al-Qaeda figure, Abu Yahya al-Libi, on Thursday urged Islamist militants to launch attacks in the West, naming the United States and Britain, to avenge Israel's onslaught on Gaza.

"Sacrifice what you can to deliver to the capitals of the infidel West, the criminal America, and the agent tyrants a taste of what they deliver to our brothers and our oppressed brothers and people in Palestine," Libi said in a videotape posted on the Internet, according a translation by SITE monitoring group.

Our hypocritical and unwavering support for Israel is endangering us again. Where do you think Israel got all those advanced munitions, used in an illegal manner? Why from your tax dollars, of course!

The U.S. weapons systems used by the Israelis -- including F-16 fighter planes, Apache helicopters, tactical missiles and a wide array of munitions -- have been provided by Washington mostly as outright military grants.

The administration of President George W. Bush alone has provided over 21 billion dollars in U.S. security assistance over the last eight years, including 19 billion dollars in direct military aid as freebies.

"Israel's intervention in the Gaza Strip has been fueled largely by U.S. supplied weapons paid for with U.S. tax dollars," says a background briefing released Thursday by the Arms and Security Initiative of the New York-based New America Foundation.

"The Bush administration has been unwilling to use its considerable influence -- as Israel's major military and political backer -- to dissuade the government in Tel Aviv from its pattern of claiming self-defence while perpetrating collective punishment, human rights violations and undertaking massively disproportionate attacks that harm and kill civilians," Frida Berrigan, senior programme associate at the New America Foundation, told IPS.

We can only hope that these policies will change under the Obama administration.

"They hate us because of our freedoms" or….

Published

on January 22, 2009

In September, 2001 former-president Bush (I love saying that) stood before Congress and the American public and provided his explanation for why we were attacked:

Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.

The truth makes far more sense: they hate us because our foreign policy has, for years, killed them in cold blood. The Christian Science Monitor from 9/27/01:

But from Jakarta to Cairo, Muslims and Arabs say that on reflection, they are not surprised by it. And they do not share Mr. Bush's view that the perpetrators did what they did because "they hate our freedoms."

Rather, they say, a mood of resentment toward America and its behavior around the world has become so commonplace in their countries that it was bound to breed hostility, and even hatred.

And the buttons that Mr. bin Laden pushes in his statements and interviews - the injustice done to the Palestinians, the cruelty of continued sanctions against Iraq, the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, the repressive and corrupt nature of US-backed Gulf governments - win a good deal of popular sympathy.

Specifically in regard to Israel:

From one end of the region to the other, the perception is that Israel can get away with murder - literally - and that Washington will turn a blind eye. Clearly, the US and Israel have compelling reasons for their actions. But little that US diplomats have done in recent years to broker a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians has persuaded Arabs that the US is a fair-minded and equitable judge of Middle Eastern affairs.

Over the past year, Arab TV stations have broadcast countless pictures of Israeli soldiers shooting at Palestinian youths, Israeli tanks plowing into Palestinian homes, Israeli helicopters rocketing Palestinian streets. And they know that the US sends more than $3 billion a year in military and economic aid to Israel.

"You see this every day, and what do you feel?" asks Rafiq Hariri, the portly prime minister of Lebanon, who is not an excitable man. "It hurts me a lot. But for hundreds of thousands of Arabs and Muslims, it drives them crazy. They feel humiliated."

It appears that we have not learned our lesson. Fast-forward to 2009, we see new threats from Al-Qaeda based on our unquestioning support for Israel:

A prominent Al-Qaeda figure, Abu Yahya al-Libi, on Thursday urged Islamist militants to launch attacks in the West, naming the United States and Britain, to avenge Israel's onslaught on Gaza.

"Sacrifice what you can to deliver to the capitals of the infidel West, the criminal America, and the agent tyrants a taste of what they deliver to our brothers and our oppressed brothers and people in Palestine," Libi said in a videotape posted on the Internet, according a translation by SITE monitoring group.

The U.S. weapons systems used by the Israelis -- including F-16 fighter planes, Apache helicopters, tactical missiles and a wide array of munitions -- have been provided by Washington mostly as outright military grants.

The administration of President George W. Bush alone has provided over 21 billion dollars in U.S. security assistance over the last eight years, including 19 billion dollars in direct military aid as freebies.

"Israel's intervention in the Gaza Strip has been fueled largely by U.S. supplied weapons paid for with U.S. tax dollars," says a background briefing released Thursday by the Arms and Security Initiative of the New York-based New America Foundation.

"The Bush administration has been unwilling to use its considerable influence -- as Israel's major military and political backer -- to dissuade the government in Tel Aviv from its pattern of claiming self-defence while perpetrating collective punishment, human rights violations and undertaking massively disproportionate attacks that harm and kill civilians," Frida Berrigan, senior programme associate at the New America Foundation, told IPS.

We can only hope that these policies will change under the Obama administration.

Cult of Personality

Published

on January 22, 2009

All excerpts from Wikipedia's entry for "Cult of Personality." All emphasis mine.

A cult of personality or personality cult arises when a country's leader uses mass media to create a heroic public image through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships.

Generally, personality cults are most common in regimes with totalitarian systems of government, that seek to radically alter or transform society according to (supposedly) revolutionary new ideas. Often, a single leader becomes associated with this revolutionary transformation, and comes to be treated as a benevolent "guide" for the nation, without whom the transformation to a better future cannot occur. This has been generally the justification for personality cults that arose in totalitarian societies of the 20th century, such as those of Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler.

Cult of Personality

Published

on January 22, 2009

All excerpts from Wikipedia's entry for "Cult of Personality." All emphasis mine.

A cult of personality or personality cult arises when a country's leader uses mass media to create a heroic public image through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships.

Generally, personality cults are most common in regimes with totalitarian systems of government, that seek to radically alter or transform society according to (supposedly) revolutionary new ideas. Often, a single leader becomes associated with this revolutionary transformation, and comes to be treated as a benevolent "guide" for the nation, without whom the transformation to a better future cannot occur. This has been generally the justification for personality cults that arose in totalitarian societies of the 20th century, such as those of Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler.

Dollar set to fall?

Published

on January 22, 2009

As I briefly mentioned yesterday, a dollar devaluation is not unforeseeable in the near-term. Many analysts suggest that it is highly unlikely due to its status as reserve currency, a viewpoint echoed in today's Wall Street Journal.

Unlike the pound, the dollar is being buttressed by its unique status as the world's reserve currency and the vehicle for transactions in U.S. financial markets, including Treasury bonds. That means investors often seek out the dollar as fears rise, sometimes in spite of their concerns about the U.S. economy.

Fair enough, for now. But consider the factors driving the devaluation of the pound:

The U.S. and the U.K. face very similar predicaments, from a deepening recession to a damaged financial system. Both are orchestrating massive bank bailouts and attempting to assist struggling homeowners. Both are ramping up government spending even as they rely on financing from overseas investors. And both countries have central banks that have slashed interest rates and opened the door to unconventional ways of stimulating the economy.

Essentially, a very real fear that the massive bailouts and spending in the UK will bankrupt the government itself. The UK government is dependent on financing from overseas investors to keep the government functioning, as is the US government. As the situation deteriorates in China, perhaps dumping the massive investment they have made in the US become an increasingly attractive option, especially as treasuries become riskier as the cost of the assorted bailouts and buyouts and loans and guarantees spirals. Again, from the Wall Street Journal:

While the dollar continues to benefit from its unique position in financial markets for now, it is far from clear that the resilience will last. "Right now the market is beating up on the pound, but at some point it will look for something else to pick on," says Paul Mackel, a currency strategist at HSBC in London.

The fact that the Federal Reserve stands ready to use a host of unconventional measures to flood the economy with liquidity in an effort to stimulate growth "could hurt the dollar quite badly" later this year, he says.

Dollar set to fall?

Published

on January 22, 2009

Unlike the pound, the dollar is being buttressed by its unique status as the world's reserve currency and the vehicle for transactions in U.S. financial markets, including Treasury bonds. That means investors often seek out the dollar as fears rise, sometimes in spite of their concerns about the U.S. economy.

Fair enough, for now. But consider the factors driving the devaluation of the pound:

The U.S. and the U.K. face very similar predicaments, from a deepening recession to a damaged financial system. Both are orchestrating massive bank bailouts and attempting to assist struggling homeowners. Both are ramping up government spending even as they rely on financing from overseas investors. And both countries have central banks that have slashed interest rates and opened the door to unconventional ways of stimulating the economy.

While the dollar continues to benefit from its unique position in financial markets for now, it is far from clear that the resilience will last. "Right now the market is beating up on the pound, but at some point it will look for something else to pick on," says Paul Mackel, a currency strategist at HSBC in London.

The fact that the Federal Reserve stands ready to use a host of unconventional measures to flood the economy with liquidity in an effort to stimulate growth "could hurt the dollar quite badly" later this year, he says.